1.
Plaintiff Tiffany Arielle Cote seeks to bring a civil rights
complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the
Camden County Jail (“CCJ”) and certain
unidentified correctional officers of CCJ (“the
C.O.'s”) for allegedly unconstitutional conditions
of confinement. Complaint, Docket Entry 1. For the reasons
set forth below, the Court concludes that the Complaint will
be dismissed with prejudice in part and dismissed without
prejudice in part.

2. 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) requires courts to review complaints
prior to service in cases in which a plaintiff is proceeding
in forma pauperis. Courts must sua sponte
dismiss any claim that is frivolous, is malicious, fails to
state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks
monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such
relief. This action is subject to sua sponte
screening for dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)
because Plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis.

3. For
the reasons set forth below, the Court will:

a. Dismiss the Complaint with prejudice as to claims made
against CCJ, as this defendant is not a “person”
within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 1983;

b. Dismiss the Complaint with prejudice for failure to state
a timely claim as to allegations of unconstitutional use of
force (“2011 Excessive Force Claim” and
“2013 Excessive Force Claim, ” as defined below),
U.S. Const. amend. XIV and 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2)(b)(ii);

c. Dismiss the Complaint with prejudice for failure to state
a timely claim as to allegedly unconstitutional conditions of
confinement at CCJ, which Plaintiff purportedly experienced
prior to October 3, 2014 (“2011 Overcrowded Conditions
of Confinement Claim” and “2013 Overcrowded
Conditions of Confinement Claim, ” as defined below),
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(b)(ii); and

d. Dismiss the Complaint without prejudice for failure to
state a claim as to allegedly unconstitutional conditions of
confinement at CCJ, which Plaintiff purportedly experienced
in May 2015 (“2015 Jail Conditions Claim, ” as
defined below), U.S. Const. amend. XIV and 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2)(b)(ii).

Plaintiff's
Claims

4.
Plaintiff alleges that she was incarcerated in CCJ during
three periods: (a) “1st time Oct. 2011 -
stayed 3 months” (referred to hereinafter as
“2011 Period”); (b) “2013 - not sure the
month” (referred to hereinafter as “2013
Period”); and (c) “then again in May of
2015” (referred to hereinafter as “2015
Period”). Complaint § III(B).

5. With
respect to the 2011 Period, Plaintiff claims that she
“had to sleep on floor w/ no towel[, ] nothing. Then
went up to 7 day [and] had to move from cell to cell [and]
had to sleep on the floor w/ only a flat matt [sic]
[and] no pillows. 2 sheet[s] / 1 blanket. 4 people at all
times in one cell” (referred to hereinafter as
“2011 Overcrowded Conditions of Confinement
Claim”). Id. § III(C). Plaintiff also
claims that “one of the C.O.'s came in my cell
trying to wake me & next thing I know I was being
kick[ed] w/ boots to wake up. I got upset [and] tried to call
my mom & tell her. The officer got mad & ripped [the]
phone out of my hand” (referred to hereinafter as
“2011 Excessive Force Claim”). Id.

6. With
respect to the 2013 Period, Plaintiff claims that she
“had to be on the floor w/ no blanket, sheet, nothing .
. . I was moved a few times & each time left on the dirty
floor” (referred to hereinafter as “2013
Overcrowded Conditions of Confinement Claim”).
Id. at 4. She also states: “I went through a
bad with drawal [and] was walking in my sleep bothering my
other cellmates. They got mad [sic] witch
[sic] I understand. One of the C.O. came in w/ a
white sheet [and] pulled me up off of the floor[, ] grad
[sic] me across the toilet[, ] smacked my face on
the wall & told me if I do anything else I would be
sentced [sic] to a 364” (referred to
hereinafter as “2013 Excessive Force Claim”).
Id.

7. With
respect to the 2015 Period, Plaintiff claims that when she
“went up to 7 day [I] was placed in a cell w[h]ere the
toilet was not working & was overflowing. I was asking if
I could clean the cell before placing my matt [sic]
in there. We were told there wasn't anything they could
do. I had to either hold it or pee over all of it witch
[sic] I didn't do. Thankful[ly] I was release[d]
that night” (referred to hereinafter as “2015
Jail Conditions Claim”). Complaint at 5.

Claims
Against CCJ: Dismissed With Prejudice

8.
Plaintiff brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §
1983[1]
for alleged violations of Plaintiff's constitutional
rights. In order to set forth a prima facie case
under § 1983, a plaintiff must show: “(1) a person
deprived him of a federal right; and (2) the person who
deprived him of that right acted under color of state or
territorial law.” Groman v. Twp. of Manalapan,
47 F.3d 628, 633 (3d Cir. 1995) (citing Gomez v.
Toledo,446 U.S. 635, 640 (1980)).

9.
Generally, for purposes of actions under § 1983,
“[t]he term ‘persons' includes local and
state officers acting under color of state law.”
Carver v. Foerster, 102 F.3d 96, 99 (3d Cir. 1996)
(citing Hafer v. Melo,502 U.S. 21
(1991)).[2] To say that a person was “acting
under color of state law” means that the defendant in a
§ 1983 action “exercised power [that the
defendant] possessed by virtue of state law and made possible
only because the wrongdoer [was] clothed with the authority
of state law.” West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 49
(1988) (citation omitted). Generally, then, “a public
employee acts under color of state law while acting in his
official capacity or while exercising his responsibilities
pursuant to state law.” Id. at 50.

10.
Because the Complaint has not sufficiently alleged that a
“person” deprived Plaintiff of a federal right,
the Complaint does not meet the standards necessary to set
forth a prima facie case under § 1983. In the
Complaint, Plaintiff seeks monetary damages from CCJ for
allegedly unconstitutional conditions of confinement. The
CCJ, however, is not a “person” within the
meaning of § 1983; therefore, the claims against it must
be dismissed with prejudice. See Crawford v.
McMillian, 660 F. App'x 113, 116 (3d Cir. 2016)
(“[T]he prison is not an entity subject to suit under
42 U.S.C. § 1983.”) (citing Fischer v.
Cahill, 474 F.2d 991, 992 (3d Cir. 1973)); Grabow v.
Southern State Corr. Facility, 726 F.Supp. 537, 538-39
(D.N.J. 1989) (correctional facility is not a
“person” under § 1983). Given that the
claims against the CCJ must be dismissed with prejudice, the
claims may not proceed and Plaintiff may not name the CCJ as
a defendant.

11.
Plaintiff may be able to amend the Complaint to name a person
or persons who were personally involved in the alleged
unconstitutional conditions of confinement, however. To that
end, the Court shall grant Plaintiff ...

Our website includes the first part of the main text of the court's opinion.
To read the entire case, you must purchase the decision for download. With purchase,
you also receive any available docket numbers, case citations or footnotes, dissents
and concurrences that accompany the decision.
Docket numbers and/or citations allow you to research a case further or to use a case in a
legal proceeding. Footnotes (if any) include details of the court's decision. If the document contains a simple affirmation or denial without discussion,
there may not be additional text.

Buy This Entire Record For
$7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.